In India, the explosive growth of the gig economy has transformed the character of work.  Digital platforms such as Zomato, Swiggy, Ola, Uber, and Urban Company have spawned a new generation of workers who do not belong to the employer-employee category. The gig workers form the core of India’s digital services economy but do not enjoy legal visibility and are vulnerable to precariousness with respect to their rights and protections. Even after the enactment of the Code on Social Security in 2020, India’s legal framework remains afflicted with issues pertaining to the proper classification, protection, and empowerment of platform workers. In this article, the socio-legal consequences of gig work in India are examined and the extent to which existing legal provisions deal with the precarious character of the work is evaluated.[1]

The Gig Economy and the Rise of Platform Work

The gig economy is a freelance or temporary labor market in relation to permanent employment.  Platform work, which is one segment of the gig economy, involves workers being connected with consumers through digital apps.  An NITI Aayog report (2022) found that the number of gig workers in India was over 7.7 million in 2021, and that this number was expected to increase to 23.5 million by 2030.1

The movement towards platform-mediated work is fueled by flexibility, scalability, and cost savings.  The gig economy generates relatively comparable power imbalances.  Employees are made vulnerable to exploitation with no avenue of redress under algorithmic management, secret rating systems, and the lack of formal contracts.[2]

Legal Classification: The Central Dilemma

One of the key challenges to the regulation of gig work in India lies in the absence of clear legal classification. Historically, Indian labor law has had the Employees vs. Independent Contractors distinction. Gig workers are in between, performing work that is similar to that of employees but being classified as independent contractors by platforms in a bid to avoid legal accountability.[3] In the case of Uber BV v. Aslam[4] (2021), the UK Supreme Court designated Uber drivers as workers eligible for minimum wage and paid leave, thereby establishing a precedent that may influence global labor practices. Conversely, Indian judiciary bodies have refrained from reaching a similar conclusion.[5] This could be mainly because India lacks detailed legal frameworks in the form of laws for gig and platform work.

The Code on Social Security, 2020: Step Forward ?

India’s initial legislative effort towards recognizing gig and platform workers was reflected in the Code on Social Security, 2020. . It recognizes them and enrolls them in social security schemes.  But its implementation is dependent on the cooperation of executives and does not enthrone compulsory commitments for platforms.  Though Section 114[6] of the Code permits the central government to draw up schemes for gig workers, it does not oblige aggregators to contribute.  The extent and nature of the benefits to be provided are not defined. Detractors argue that this reflects a diminished commitment to substantial reform.[7]

Role of State in Socio-Economic Invisibility and Algorithmic Control

Gig workers are in a contradictory situation: they are indispensable to delivering services in areas that are urban, but they are also not socially visible and legally recognized.  During the COVID-19 pandemic, many delivery workers were categorized as “essential workers” but did not gain hazard pay, health insurance, or adequate safety gear.  This mismatch highlights the socio-legal invisibility of platform work.[8]

Gig workers are also further marginalized by the absence of unionization and a de facto informal work arrangement.  Attempts at collectivization, such as by the Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT), have met systemic pushback and lack legal recognition under existing industrial relations legislation. Algorithmic control on online platforms is exercised through ratings, performance measurements, and incentives that shape how workers act.  Experts argue that this is a case of “platform feudalism,” with freedom being an illusion and surveillance present everywhere. Gig workers are usually exposed to excessive working hours, no social security protection, minimum wage, and channels for redressing grievances. This is a challenge to the Indian legal framework, which is premised on traditional employment norms..[9]

Recommendations for Legal Reform and Conclusion

1. Statutory Recognition of Gig Workers as a Third Category: Like the UK concept of “worker,” India may establish an intermediate category with minimum protections but not full employment rights.
2. Mandatory Contributions to Social Security: The law should mandate platforms to make welfare fund contributions with enforcement obligations.
3. Grievance Redressal Mechanisms: Establish labour tribunals or ombudsman mechanisms for each platform to resolve grievances.
4. Data Transparency and Algorithmic Responsibility: Require platforms to disclose performance statistics and decision-making algorithms to ensure equity.
5. Unionization Support: Update labor relations laws to allow gig workers to form unions and bargain collectively.

In India, the gig economy has both presented opportunities and challenges to the labour market.  It brings innovation and agility, yet exacerbates inequality and precarity.  Legal codes like the Code on Social Security, 2020 are good starting points, but fail to address the structural vulnerabilities of the gig workers appropriately.[10] To ensure that the invisible forces of the digital economy are not overlooked, it is critical to create a comprehensive, rights-based legal framework that is responsive to India’s socio-economic realities and incorporates international best practices.

[1] NITI Aayog and others, “India’s Booming Gig and Platform Economy: Perspectives and Recommendations on the Future of Work” (2022) <https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-06/Policy_Brief_India%27s_Booming_Gig_and_Platform_Economy_27062022.pdf>.

[2] Van Doorn, “The Contingencies of Platform Power and Risk Management in the Gig Economy” (Internet Policy Review, November 14, 2023) <https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/platform-power-and-risk-management>.

[3] “The Plight of Gig Workers in India” (The Wire, May 1, 2025) <https://thewire.in/labour/the-plight-of-gig-workers-in-india>.

[4] Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5, [2021] ICR 657.

[5] Jeremias Adams-Prassl, “Uber BV v Aslam: ‘[W]Ork Relations … Cannot Safely Be Left to Contractual Regulation’” (2022) 51 Industrial Law Journal 955 <https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac027>.

[6] The Code on Social Security 2020, No 36 of 2020, s 114.

[7] “Gig and Platform Workers: Social Security Code 2020” (Singhania & Partners) <https://singhania.in/blog/gig-workers-and-platform-workers-the-code-on-social-security-2020>.

[8] Sazzad Parwez and Rajiv Ranjan, “The Platform Economy and the Precarisation of Food Delivery Work in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from India” (2021) 15 Work Organisation Labour & Globalisation <https://doi.org/10.13169/workorgalaboglob.15.1.0011>.

[9] Rose Deller and Rose Deller, “Book Review: Platform Capitalism by Nick Srnicek – LSE Review of Books” (LSE Review of Books – the latest social science books reviewed by academics and experts, March 19, 2021) <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2017/06/05/book-review-platform-capitalism-by-nick-srnicek/>.

[10] Hemant Sharma, “Code on Social Security, 2020: Challenges of the Code” [2023] SSRN Electronic Journal <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4387351>.